Hb 224

KonaChick · 03-25-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicole

[/B]

KonaChick-you are famous!

The front page of The Citizen has an article about HB224 and they have your quote and they mention other discussions on this thread as well!
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...893/-1/CITIZEN

On winnipesaukee.com, one writer mused about being on her dock this year and selling red swim caps for $50 a piece. Several other writers opined that lawmakers should be spending their time on said economic crisis while one asked whether violators would be listed in The Citizen police blotter and have their court proceedings reported upon.

There was also a post from a writer who said that he has witnessed watercraft violate the proximity restrictions to the shore and other boats but he, too, expressed concerns about enforceability, noting, however, that there were other laws on the books with dubious enforceability.

For an extra ten bucks I will include an autograph on your red swim cap!! So the truth comes out, Gottling lives on Lake Sunapee and apparently swimmers can be found swimming at a certain spot where boats come up to full speed. Why not use your energies to make that part of Lake Sunapee a "No Wake Zone" if it's such a huge problem?? Solve the problems in your own house before you stick your nose into mine. Perhaps pay more attention while you're boating! Because you have some issues with a spot on Lake Sunappee I now have to change my habits and lifestyle?? I know I'm stretching here but come on folks, like I said before when will this nonsense end? I will not get into a political debate (although I'd like to). It's just sillliness to spend time and energy on these totally inane, unenforcable laws. It's almost like it's going back to Puritan times. Have you ever seen some of the laws written back then? Stay tuned folks with the house and senate in it's current "state" this is just the beginning (oops, I said I would not get into a political debate).

AC2717 · 03-25-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

For an extra ten bucks I will include an autograph on your red swim cap!! So the truth comes out, Gottling lives on Lake Sunapee and apparently swimmers can be found swimming at a certain spot where boats come up to full speed. Why not use your energies to make that part of Lake Sunapee a "No Wake Zone" if it's such a huge problem?? Solve the problems in your own house before you stick your nose into mine. Perhaps pay more attention while you're boating! Because you have some issues with a spot on Lake Sunappee I now have to change my habits and lifestyle?? I know I'm stretching here but come on folks, like I said before when will this nonsense end? I will not get into a political debate (although I'd like to). It's just sillliness to spend time and energy on these totally inane, unenforcable laws. It's almost like it's going back to Puritan times. Have you ever seen some of the laws written back then? Stay tuned folks with the house and senate in it's current "state" this is just the beginning (oops, I said I would not get into a political debate).

You read my mind, but did it in a much shorter rant, thank you, or someoneshe knows did something stupid and now she is trying to protect eveyone from doing the stupid thing, makes me sick the way these people think, it is not the idiotic person's fault it is societies fault for thinking people should have common sense, can I takea stab out there and think she might also be a lawyer?

Lakewinn1 · 03-25-2009, 12:59 PM

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

chipj29 · 03-25-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

If you are skinny dipping, you should hang your bathing suit from the stern light.

hazelnut · 03-25-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

Yes I do:

The Flag that you are supposed to display is white with Black text on it. It should read:

If You Can Read This
You Broke The
150 Foot Law
And You Already
Ran Me Over Because
I Was Swimming.
Please Dial 911.
Thank You

Lakewinn1 · 03-25-2009, 06:07 PM

Love the craetivity.... but I really would like to know.

Skip · 03-25-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Love the craetivity.... but I really would like to know.

The bill leaves the type of cap or swimwear, along with the type of swim flag, at the discretion of Safety.

If the bill as proposed passes, then the Safety Department, via the administrative rules process, will designate the type of swimwear and flag specifications.

In short? Those details are still a long way off......

Mee-n-Mac · 03-25-2009, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

The bill leaves the type of cap or swimwear, along with the type of swim flag, at the discretion of Safety.

If the bill as proposed passes, then the Safety Department, via the administrative rules process, will designate the type of swimwear and flag specifications.

In short? Those details are still a long way off......

From the Citizen article mentioned previously ....

"People should be brightly colored" while in area lakes, said Stuart, who is a boater. "I hate driving a boat on the lake when I can't see swimmers clearly and I hope it (SB224) passes. This is important to have swimmers marked so that we can see them. I don't care if it's red or fluorescent yellow or a flag as long as they're marked."

OK, so say we compromise on safety and allow this offshore swimming to go on. Let's say people object to wearing hi-vis gear (as odd as that sounds). So it would seem Rep Stuart is offering up another solution. I know these marking devices come with day-glo marking material. I think the standoff distance allowed by their design will also prove to be of some utility. I think Rep Stuart's idea merits some discussion ! Remember more visibler is more saferer !!

Pineedles · 03-25-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

The bill leaves the type of cap or swim wear, along with the type of swim flag, at the discretion of Safety.

If the bill as proposed passes, then the Safety Department, via the administrative rules process, will designate the type of swim wear and flag specifications.

In short? Those details are still a long way off......

In short? In short? I think that saying "in short" is a way to calm folks who have have a problem with this stupid bill, and the short sighted politicians on the committee that voted for this bill! I think people want the government to deal with more important issues, than what freakin color swim cap that I WON'T WEAR. I think, "If the bill as proposed passes" then there will be a lot of civil and uncivil disobedience! I plan on being VERY UNCIVIL! I can't help it, I was born with the Founding Father's conception of Liberty in my blood.

Anyone want to join me? I suggest a massive "SWIM-OUT" at Ms. Gottling's Lake Sunapee site this summer! What a news article that would make! Ten, 20, 50 or more people swimming 151' off of Ms. Gottling's Lake Sunapee home getting arrested, not. What a picture for the Newspapers! Newspapers, heck, it would be a great video shot for NH and Associated Press cameras!

Sorry I can't get into the levity that some of you have interspersed into this thread. Normally, I would be laughing my butt off with some of the jokes and original thoughts that you-all have posted, but I can't help it, liberty is too important to me.

Skip · 03-26-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

...In short? In short? I think that saying "in short" is a way to calm folks who have have a problem with this stupid bill...

Whoa Bucko...take a chill pill....

I was simply answering a pertinent question as to the mechanics of how the bill would be implemented if it is passed as proposed.

I have not taken any sides or insinuated any hidden political agenda, much less the accused "...calm folks who have a problem with this stupid bill..."

Remember that old saying...."please don't shoot the messenger..."

Thanks,

Skip

ApS · 03-26-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakewinn1

Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

New Jersey mandates this orange flag to be displayed from the boat when a towed person is down:

That may be the model used here, though I doubt this proposal has any chance of passing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rinkerfam

"...It's only a matter of time before a house bill surfaces telling us how many squares we can use in the public facilities..."

Or for how long, as in, "Squares per Minute".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...if the cap isn't a guaranteed cure-all then certainly more visible is more saferer...!"

The cap would need to be reversable to cover the face: a swimmer doing a backstroke would not be displaying the cap properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...Why people are fighting this I'll just never understand..."

People don't need to fight this: just tuck the cap in your swimsuit. The law doesn't state that the cap must be worn on one's head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...If you want to swim that far offshore then the ocean is only some miles away !! Take your reckless, mindless "swimming" to someplace where I won't have to see it..."

There was actually a case where miles off Miami, a boater encountered swimmers and radioed the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard informed the offshore boat that what the swimmers were doing was perfectly legal—then wrote the boat a ticket! I'll try to find the article: it's archived somewhere in this computer.

ETA: Just located the link in my computer. The link is HERE:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...I mean if kayaks can get cut in half then what does that say about the poor swimmer's chances...?"

A swimmer can submerge just 18" and be out of danger. (Just sayin').

tis · 03-26-2009, 08:20 AM

You know, Pineedles, I think we need more people like you who aren't afraid to be outspoken about losing our freedoms! I think your swim in is a great idea too!

nicole · 03-26-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

You know, Pineedles, I think we need more people like you who aren't afraid to be outspoken about losing our freedoms! I think your swim in is a great idea too!

I agree with you, tis!

Pineneedles-sign me up for the swim

Pineedles · 03-26-2009, 08:29 AM

Sorry Skip. Understood regarding messenger role. I just don't want folks to think, "Aw, its so far off before anything happens. I don't have to worry about it now. After all their just making us wear little stars on our chest, oops I mean caps on our heads, what's the big deal about that. They just want us to be more visible.

More visible is safer. Right, Mee-n-Mac?

DickR · 03-26-2009, 05:46 PM

"New Jersey mandates this orange flag to be displayed from the boat when a towed person is down:"

Frankly, if I am pullling someone behind me and he goes down, my first thought would not be to mount a flag while I am far more than 75 feet from the person down. My immediate priority is to get the boat near the person down, preferrably between him and any approaching boat.

If the state house clowns are itchy to do something about safety, I'd much rather they address boaters who tailgate another boat pulling someone. If the towed person goes down, that following boat has precious little time to take evasive action. I don't see how that could be addressed by law, however. But if I were a MP out there and saw a tailgater like that I would pull him over and read him the riot act.

Mee-n-Mac · 03-26-2009, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Sorry Skip. Understood regarding messenger role. I just don't want folks to think, "Aw, its so far off before anything happens. I don't have to worry about it now. After all their just making us wear little stars on our chest, oops I mean caps on our heads, what's the big deal about that. They just want us to be more visible.

More visible is safer. Right, Mee-n-Mac?

Right ! At least for now .... until we can get more high tech about this whole offshore swimming thing. Once Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the National Healthcare Office, has put the RFID chip in you (and by "you" I mean all of us) then we can proceed to require RFID readers in all the boats. A proximity alert will sound any time you're too close to an above water swimmer. Of course if you decide not to alter course nor speed then the identity of the victim will already be known and a printout will emerge informing you where to send the flowers to.

Skip · 03-27-2009, 06:25 AM

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

chipj29 · 03-27-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

That is great news Skip. But...

The scary part is that nearly 1/3 of our elected legislators thought that this bill was a good idea.

jeffk · 03-27-2009, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

That is great news Skip. But...

The scary part is that nearly 1/3 of our elected legislators thought that this bill was a good idea.

The problem is that there are a lot of people out there, and apparently 91 in the legislature, that hear something is going to "protect" people and they don't think any further. They don't think about enforceability or negative side effects or cost or effects on freedom. It's all about protecting people. How can anyone be against protecting people?

Fortunately there were 201 people who didn't shut off their brain and did the right thing.

KonaChick · 03-27-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

Thank you for the update Skip

Lakegeezer · 03-27-2009, 11:42 AM

There is little doubt where the nannyism is coming from....

96% of those voting for the bill were democrats. (3 R vs 94 D)
70% of those against the bill were republicans (139 R vs 62 D)

98% of republicans and 40% of democrats voted against the bill
2% of republicans and 60% of democrats voted for it

Gender was a less of a factor, but shows an interesting point of view.

175 men voted vs 123 women

65% of those voting against the bill were men (131 M vs 70 W)
54% of those voting for the bill were women (53 W vs 44 M)

75% of men voted agaist the bill (131 to 44)
56% of women voted against the bill (70 to 53)

Based on:
142 republicans voted vs 156 democrats
33 republicans did not vote vs 67 democrats

KonaChick · 03-27-2009, 12:36 PM

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/nhgc...otedetail.aspx

Hope this link works if anyone is interested!

This'nThat · 03-27-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

65% of those voting against the bill were men (131 M vs 70 W)
54% of those voting for the bill were women (53 W vs 44 M)

This is a large reason why we call it the nanny state. The rest of the reason is due to democrats who refuse to think 5 minutes into the future to check consequences.

Pineedles · 03-27-2009, 01:22 PM

I think we all deserve a pat on the back for helping to defeat this bill. I would guess and granted it is only a guess, that some of those 63 democrats who voted against the bill may have seen some of our comments on this site. I say this because there have been other dumb bills voted on that had a slimmer margin or passed. Thank you all for your comments, thank you Skip for the information, and thank you Don for providing the forum that hopefully some of the Legislature looked at that influenced their vote.

gtxrider · 03-27-2009, 02:24 PM

Now what do I do with the Blaze Orange hat?

chipj29 · 03-27-2009, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxrider

Now what do I do with the Blaze Orange hat?

Hunting season is right around the corner!

Sandy Beach · 03-31-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip

At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord.

The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

The swim cap bill was still suported by one third as jeffk pointed out. That's a staggering number in favor of this swim cap silliness. Think it through people!

For instance, if a swimmer with a red cap wanted to rest or just float on their back, the cap could be pretty much below water. Where would those 91 expect a swimmer to put the red cap then?

Thank you for the good news Skip. You are an excellent contributer to the forum.

tis · 03-27-2009, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Right ! At least for now .... until we can get more high tech about this whole offshore swimming thing. Once Homeland Security, working in conjunction with the National Healthcare Office, has put the RFID chip in you (and by "you" I mean all of us) then we can proceed to require RFID readers in all the boats. A proximity alert will sound any time you're too close to an above water swimmer. Of course if you decide not to alter course nor speed then the identity of the victim will already be known and a printout will emerge informing you where to send the flowers to.

AT the rate things are being passed, it may be sooner than we think, Mee! I truly think it is scary.

03-25-2009, 12:59 PM	#3
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 Does anyone know exactly what flag the boat is required to display when it has swimmers in the water?

03-25-2009, 06:07 PM	#6
Lakewinn1 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 93 Thanks: 78 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Hb 224 Love the craetivity.... but I really would like to know.

03-26-2009, 08:29 AM	#14
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,545 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts	OK I'll Chill Sorry Skip. Understood regarding messenger role. I just don't want folks to think, "Aw, its so far off before anything happens. I don't have to worry about it now. After all their just making us wear little stars on our chest, oops I mean caps on our heads, what's the big deal about that. They just want us to be more visible. More visible is safer. Right, Mee-n-Mac?

03-27-2009, 06:25 AM	#17
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Thinking caps versus swimming caps... At least, momentarily, common sense prevailed in Concord. The "swim cap" bill was soundly defeated by a vote of 201-91!

03-27-2009, 11:42 AM	#21
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,679 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 355 Thanked 640 Times in 291 Posts	Interesting stats There is little doubt where the nannyism is coming from.... 96% of those voting for the bill were democrats. (3 R vs 94 D) 70% of those against the bill were republicans (139 R vs 62 D) 98% of republicans and 40% of democrats voted against the bill 2% of republicans and 60% of democrats voted for it Gender was a less of a factor, but shows an interesting point of view. 175 men voted vs 123 women 65% of those voting against the bill were men (131 M vs 70 W) 54% of those voting for the bill were women (53 W vs 44 M) 75% of men voted agaist the bill (131 to 44) 56% of women voted against the bill (70 to 53) Based on: 142 republicans voted vs 156 democrats 33 republicans did not vote vs 67 democrats __________________ -lg

03-26-2009, 08:20 AM	#12
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,773 Thanks: 755 Thanked 1,464 Times in 1,020 Posts	You know, Pineedles, I think we need more people like you who aren't afraid to be outspoken about losing our freedoms! I think your swim in is a great idea too!

03-26-2009, 05:46 PM	#15
DickR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 755 Thanks: 4 Thanked 259 Times in 171 Posts	"New Jersey mandates this orange flag to be displayed from the boat when a towed person is down:" Frankly, if I am pullling someone behind me and he goes down, my first thought would not be to mount a flag while I am far more than 75 feet from the person down. My immediate priority is to get the boat near the person down, preferrably between him and any approaching boat. If the state house clowns are itchy to do something about safety, I'd much rather they address boaters who tailgate another boat pulling someone. If the towed person goes down, that following boat has precious little time to take evasive action. I don't see how that could be addressed by law, however. But if I were a MP out there and saw a tailgater like that I would pull him over and read him the riot act.

03-27-2009, 12:36 PM	#22
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/nhgc...otedetail.aspx Hope this link works if anyone is interested!

03-27-2009, 01:22 PM	#24
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,545 Thanks: 1,072 Thanked 668 Times in 367 Posts	A pat on the back I think we all deserve a pat on the back for helping to defeat this bill. I would guess and granted it is only a guess, that some of those 63 democrats who voted against the bill may have seen some of our comments on this site. I say this because there have been other dumb bills voted on that had a slimmer margin or passed. Thank you all for your comments, thank you Skip for the information, and thank you Don for providing the forum that hopefully some of the Legislature looked at that influenced their vote.

03-27-2009, 02:24 PM	#25
gtxrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Piscataway, NJ Posts: 1,030 Thanks: 2 Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts	oh nuts Now what do I do with the Blaze Orange hat?